6
comments:

these paintings are terrible. honestly, who are we trying to kid here? the color is primary, the composition is absent and everything else about it is arbitrary and unaesthetic. i dont care what -ism you use to justify it.

Anonymous: It's easy to disregard someone's work when you hide behind a curtain of anonymity. If you have the courage of your convictions, identify yourself. Otherwise your own words will be disregarded.

Stay anon or don't - it doesn't matter, as long as you give something to think about. I'm more interested in comments than commenters.

Anon, I would like more specifics from you about the paintings and why they don't work, and what you mean by arbitrary and primary (surely not literally primary colors) and what, by comparison, does cut the mustard for you.

The centralized composition, the zigzags and loopy humps, and the messy "gestural" brushwork that adds noise but not necessarily direction, as in DeK - these are clearly choices, possibly to distinguish herself from tasteful traditions in abstraction that include not only AbEx but Nozk. There is a kind of abrupt dopiness that I appreciate in, for example, Heilmann or Chris Martin, but I'm not sure if this is working. It strikes me as rather suave.

I agree with anonymous. These paintings are crappy. However, upon reading the quote, I think that maybe the artist also thought them to be crap because she specifically includes the words "work or not work" in the text. Evidently, according to this artist, and regardless of whether the painting works, it is mystical and therefore has power. So logically it follows to say these paintings are powerful even though they appear to be crap(or not crap). What we have here is perhaps a new era for painting. Critics will no longer need to render opinions or judgments. Now, a paintings power is proportional to it's mystical state. To analyze it is to neutralize it's power. Looks like we all win - Yay!!